The editorial comment in Golos Sotsial-Demokrata, i. e., by Plekhanov
and Co., on our analysis of Comrade Maslov’s
letter[1]
in Proletary,
No. 37, has now appeared as a separate supplement to No. 8–9 of Golos.

This “Comment”, in length about half a column of Proletary, merits the attention of Russian Social-Democrats, for it shows how
petty factional interests have led Plekhanov and Co. to defend
theoretical revisionism with the aid of the most unseemly sophistry. Here are
the facts.

“We are the most determined and absolutely irreconcilable opponents of
that re-examination (revision) of Marxism which is being performed
under the reactionary influence of the ideologists of the West-European
bourgeoisie and whose object is to strike at the roots of the philosophical,
sociological, and economic doctrines of Marx and Engels,” That is the
first sentence of the comment. “Most determined and absolutely
irreconcilable opponents”— could it be put more sharply? It would be hard
to produce a more grandiloquent formula for the promises of Plekhanov
and Co.

But ... the trouble is that our “irreconcilable” enemies of
revisionism resort to a very meaningful “but” in relation to
Maslov (and Plekhanov and Co. wrote this Comment precisely in connection
with Maslov’s article, precisely on the question of Maslov’s
revisionism).

“But we have never been Marxist sectarians,” Plekhanov
and Co. declare, “and we realise only too well that one can
differ from Marx and Engels on one question or another,
and far from perverting their point of view or repudiating their method, remain
true to both.” And this example is cited: Cunow, a
Social-Democrat, had “partial differences with Engels” on the
question of “the origin of the matriarchate”, but “only a
morbid mind could accuse him, of revisionism on these grounds”.

“The foregoing holds good also for our attitude to
Comrade Maslov’s views on Marx’s theory of rent. We do not share this
view” (Golos adds editorially: “Comrade Martynov made the
specific reservation in No. 4 of Golos that he did not agree with
Comrade Maslov’s amendment to the theory of absolute rent”), “but
we do not regard it as revisionism....”

The reader can now follow the Plekhanov and Co. trend of reasoning. We are
“absolutely irreconcilable opponents of revisionism”,
but—“we do not regard it [Maslov’s view on the theory of
absolute rent] as revisionism”. Revisionism strikes at the roots of
Marx’s doctrine, whereas Maslov differs with Marx on a partial
issue—such is the line of defence taken by Plekhanov and Co., and fully
amplified by the reference to Cunow.

We ask the unbiased and thinking reader: is this not sophistry? Marx’s
theory of absolute rent is declared a “partial issue”! Differences on his
theory of rent are equated with the fact that Cunow had “partial
differences” with Engels on the origin of the matriarchate! Plekhanov and
Co. apparently consider their Mensheviks little children to be fed on such
explanations. One has to have no respect for oneself or for one’s reader
to play the clown like this in discussing cardinal questions of
principle. Plekhanov and Co. themselves begin their explanation with a solemn
phrase in which revisionism is described as striking at the roots of
Marx’s and Engels’s doctrine. Very well. But do Plekhanov and
Co. renounce that attitude in the case of Maslov? Yes or no? Or have
Plekhanov and Co. penned their comment only to conceal their thoughts?

Maslov has declared, in a number of articles and in several editions of his
Agrarian Question, that (1) Marx’s theory of absolute
rent is wrong; (2) the appearance of such a theory is due to the
“rough” nature of Volume III; (3) “diminishing returns”
are a fact; (4) if the theory of
absolute rent were correct and the “law of diminishing returns”
wrong, the Narodniks in Russia and the revisionists the world over might prove
to be right.

These were the four points which were held against Maslov in the
Proletary article from which the whole polemic began. But just see how
Plekhanov and Co. react. First, they very modestly confine themselves to the
question of rent, i. e., they maintain complete silence on all the other
questions. Is this not defence of revisionism? Are Plekhanov and Co. going to
deny that the revision of Marx’s theory about the absurdity of both the
law and “fact” of diminishing returns “is being performed
under the reactionary influence of the ideologists of the West-European
bourgeoisie”? Secondly, the theory of absolute rent is equated with a partial
question, with differences (“partial”) over the origin of the
matriarchate!

This, gentlemen, is mental acrobatics! And you are using them to conceal your
public defence of revisionism. For you do not venture to state openly
that recognition of absolute rent and negation of the law (or
“fact”) of diminishing returns are not the
“roots” of Marx’s economic doctrine on the agrarian
question. You defend your “own chap” by adjusting Marx to fit
Maslov, by declaring that, in Maslov’s case, the very
roots of Marx’s theory are no more than a matter of
“partial differences”. You thereby confirm what Proletary
(No. 33[2]
)
said about the Menshevik theoretical
Famusovs,[3]
who reward their
household by agreeing to regard Marx’s economic theory as a
“partial” question and by putting it on a par with the question of
the origin of the matriarchate.

Plekhanov and Co. are, “irreconcilable enemies of revisionism”—but
if you are a Menshevik, don’t be afraid of these dread words! You can go
to the Golos editors, knowing that for Mensheviks irreconcilability is
very reconcilable— so much so that they are prepared to equate
“uprooting of theory” with “differences over the origin of the
matriarchate”. Indulgences are being offered cheap, ladies -and
gentlemen, the sale is on!

But to continue. We do not share Maslov’s views on rent, say Plekhanov and
Co. Martynov has already made a reservation to that effect, they add. The
“individual” whom the editors of Proletary described as
“Maslov’s guardian angel” (i. e., Plekhanov), has “often
[listen to this!] polemised in the press [Golos italics] with Comrade
Maslov on subjects closely related to our agrarian programme”.

Learn from your editors how to write disclaimers, Menshevik comrades. Here you
have a classical example. The point at issue is revisionism, and the controversy
began about whether it was theoretical irreconcilability or only petty
factional spite that made Plekhanov refer to several of his opponents, in the
Party organ, as “Messrs.” But the “disclaimer” says:
Plekhanov “often polemised in the press” with Maslov, but not
about the rent theory and not about Maslov’s deviations from Marxian
theory.

Is there a suitable parliamentary expression to describe such methods?
Plekhanov, who is a lover of theoretical controversies, and is able, on
occasion, to turn them into campaigns, has never, not once, polemised
with Maslov about what constitutes his revisionism, i. e., his negation of the
absolute rent theory, his describing it as a “rough note”, his
defence of the “fact” of diminishing returns, or about whether or
not the Narodniks and revisionists might have proved to be right if Maslov had
not refuted Marx. Not once did Plekhanov argue on these points: he
polemised about something quite different, namely, side issues, which the
Menshevik
Tartuffes[4]
have now concealed behind a subtly hazy, deliberately
misleading and diplomatically confused phrase: “subjects closely related
to our agrarian programme”!

Brilliant, what? One cannot help congratulating Plekhanov and Co. on this
opening defence of revisionism! One cannot help recalling politicians of the
Clemenceau stamp. Clemenceau, “irreconcilable” enemy of reaction,
“often polemised” with it, but now, with reaction in the
saddle, Clemenceau makes reservations and ... serves it. Plekhanov is an
“irreconcilable” enemy of revisionism. Plekhanov has “often
polemised” with Maslov (on every imaginable subject except
Maslov’s revisionism). And now Maslov has come out against Marx, repeating
his old arguments against the Marxian theory in the pages of Golos, but
Plekhanov and Co. only make reservations!

Buy your indulgences, literary gentlemen, sign up with the Mensheviks! Tomorrow
you will be given the opportunity to refute Marx’s theory of value as
well in the pages of Golos—with the reservation in a comment by the editors
that they “are not in agreement”....

“Will not Proletary endeavour,” Plekhanov and Co. ask in the
same Comment, “‘to substantiate its remark’ about the connection
between
Maslov’s. reflections on absolute rent and the programme which repudiates
nationalisation?” With the greatest of pleasure, dear
“irreconcilables”. Here is a brief first substantiation to
start. with:

“Is it possible, while failing to. understand Marx’s theory of
absolute rent, to appreciate the role of private property in land as an obstacle
to the development of the productive forces of capitalist society?”

Consult Maslov, “irreconcilable” Plekhanov and Co., and answer
that question, which gives you the substantiation you want!